IPlate question

If your ring wire is already disconnected at the master socket, will
the IPlate make any difference?

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> If your ring wire is already disconnected at the master socket, will
> the IPlate make any difference?

No, since it is just an inductor in the ring wire...
--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:10:07 +0100, John Weston
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>says...
>> If your ring wire is already disconnected at the master socket, will
>> the IPlate make any difference?
>
>No, since it is just an inductor in the ring wire...

Thanks. Some people mentioned that it provided additional filtering as
well as disconnecting the ring wire so I wasn't sure.

If all it does is disconnect the ring wire, I'll not bother with it.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:10:07 +0100, John Weston
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> >says...
> >> If your ring wire is already disconnected at the master socket, will
> >> the IPlate make any difference?
> >
> >No, since it is just an inductor in the ring wire...
>
> Thanks. Some people mentioned that it provided additional filtering as
> well as disconnecting the ring wire so I wasn't sure.
>
> If all it does is disconnect the ring wire, I'll not bother with it.

You'd be better off fitting a faceplate filter, to remove the ADSL
signal from the house wiring. If your ADSL modem is some distance from
the master, then connect its wire ONLY to the unfiltered side, to carry
the ADSL signal to the modem. You need one that has the unfiltered
output connections on the back, like the ADSLnation XTE2005.

And you can't fit an IPlate together with a faceplate filter.
--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:41:31 +0100, John Weston
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>says...
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:10:07 +0100, John Weston
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>> >says...
>> >> If your ring wire is already disconnected at the master socket, will
>> >> the IPlate make any difference?
>> >
>> >No, since it is just an inductor in the ring wire...
>>
>> Thanks. Some people mentioned that it provided additional filtering as
>> well as disconnecting the ring wire so I wasn't sure.
>>
>> If all it does is disconnect the ring wire, I'll not bother with it.
>
>You'd be better off fitting a faceplate filter, to remove the ADSL
>signal from the house wiring. If your ADSL modem is some distance from
>the master, then connect its wire ONLY to the unfiltered side, to carry
>the ADSL signal to the modem. You need one that has the unfiltered
>output connections on the back, like the ADSLnation XTE2005.
>
>And you can't fit an IPlate together with a faceplate filter.

My problem is that I have a Linksys wireless Gateway connected at the
end of a 20m telephone extension. My computer is connected to this via
an Ethernet cable but other computers in the house connect wirelessly.
During some times of the day it'll only stay connected for around 30
seconds before dropping. Rather than pulling this PC apart and fitting
a wireless card, I wondered if the IPlate would help...

What would you people recommend I do?

"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:41:31 +0100, John Weston
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>says...
>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:10:07 +0100, John Weston
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>> >says...
>>> >> If your ring wire is already disconnected at the master socket, will
>>> >> the IPlate make any difference?
>>> >
>>> >No, since it is just an inductor in the ring wire...
>>>
>>> Thanks. Some people mentioned that it provided additional filtering as
>>> well as disconnecting the ring wire so I wasn't sure.
>>>
>>> If all it does is disconnect the ring wire, I'll not bother with it.
>>
>>You'd be better off fitting a faceplate filter, to remove the ADSL
>>signal from the house wiring. If your ADSL modem is some distance from
>>the master, then connect its wire ONLY to the unfiltered side, to carry
>>the ADSL signal to the modem. You need one that has the unfiltered
>>output connections on the back, like the ADSLnation XTE2005.
>>
>>And you can't fit an IPlate together with a faceplate filter.
>
> My problem is that I have a Linksys wireless Gateway connected at the
> end of a 20m telephone extension. My computer is connected to this via
> an Ethernet cable but other computers in the house connect wirelessly.
> During some times of the day it'll only stay connected for around 30
> seconds before dropping. Rather than pulling this PC apart and fitting
> a wireless card, I wondered if the IPlate would help...
>
> What would you people recommend I do?

Fit a filtered faceplate and wire a pair from the
unfiltered connectors to a socket located where you
need the router. Ideally I would use an RJ11 wallplate.

If there is a phone socket in that room already and
it is wired straight back to the filtered faceplate
with (say) 3 pair cable I would the the spair pair
for this dedicated socket.
I have never had any issues doing this, but I know
some people prefer to keep the raw ADSL in
a separate cable.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In article <g92920$5v6$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
>
> "Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > My problem is that I have a Linksys wireless Gateway connected at the
> > end of a 20m telephone extension. My computer is connected to this via
> > an Ethernet cable but other computers in the house connect wirelessly.
> > During some times of the day it'll only stay connected for around 30
> > seconds before dropping. Rather than pulling this PC apart and fitting
> > a wireless card, I wondered if the IPlate would help...
> >
> > What would you people recommend I do?
>
> Fit a filtered faceplate and wire a pair from the
> unfiltered connectors to a socket located where you
> need the router. Ideally I would use an RJ11 wallplate.
>
> If there is a phone socket in that room already and
> it is wired straight back to the filtered faceplate
> with (say) 3 pair cable I would the the spair pair
> for this dedicated socket.
> I have never had any issues doing this, but I know
> some people prefer to keep the raw ADSL in
> a separate cable.

That works for me, in similar installations I've done - provided the
extension wire is twisted-pair and not a flat cable extension. (I've had
one of these already installed "B&Q extension cables" which is still
working OK but...)

I'd prefer to keep the 3-pair going to the slave socket by the computer
dedecated to the ADSL supply on one of the pairs, leaving the other two
unterminated and then, if necessary, feed a local telephony device in
the computer room via a local filter. For this, I use filtered slave
sockets (ADSLnation XTF-68/85) so there is never any chance of plugging
in a phone without a dongle filter - I've had analogue modems (for fax)
pluged into the same socket as the ADSL modem, before any filter (...Oh,
I though that socket was for phones only...) I keep all the ADSL-
carrying parts terminated on RJ11s and filtered telephony parts on BT
sockets. If it can be incorrectly connected by customers, it will.

--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

In article <j-OdnaG0LN0-(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...

>
> I'd put it a bit stronger than "May" help with RFI. The 4.6mH inductor
> is a common mode choke, which is VERY effective in reducing RF pickup in
> the external wiring. This looks pretty well identical to the "RF3"
> filter which is used by BT in the case of bad RF interference. I have a
> BT-fitted RF3, and it's the bees neez for this purpose.
>
> If you don't have a faceplate filter, I'd go for an iPlate ....
>
> Perhaps all those who like to tell us that the iPlate "is just a choke
> in the bell wire" or "You'd be just as well cutting the bell wire" will
> now reconsider their "advice" ?

Not really, my advice, based on rescuing several badly performing ADSL
installations, was to use a faceplate filter rather than an IPlate. The
IPlate is a second-best solution, better than nothing in some cases
where poor plug-in filters have been used, but far from ideal.

Don't forget that installations with RF common mode filters fitted in
the past to reject local broadcast stations from telephone apparatus,
cannot support ADSL until these filters have been removed. The small
filters used in IPlates can only be effective at frequencies above the
ADSL band, so can do little for in-band noise.

If you have common mode noise on your incoming wires, then any good ADSL
modem DSP is designed to accommodate this. However, any normal mode
components that fall within the ADSL frequency "bins" appear as noise.
If the DSP finds noise in any bin, then it will not fully use that bin
and so be unable to run the line at full speed. Any common mode filter
can only reduce noise outside the ADSL band (25KHz to 1.1MHz), without
also reducing the signal level in the bins, making them unusable. For a
discussion on this, see http://yarwell.blogspot.com/2005_08_01
_yarwell_archive.html

In my opinion, fitting common mode filters effective above 1.1MHz will
only help if you have a poor home intallation. With this, the IPlate
reduces out-of-band common mode noise coming in over the BT lines before
it gets into your home wiring where it could be converted to normal mode
in-band noise by discontinuties. This cannot be handled by the ADSL
DSPs, since it is seen as contibuting to a poor noise margin figure in
the bins.
--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

John Weston wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >
> > I'd put it a bit stronger than "May" help with RFI. The 4.6mH inductor
> > is a common mode choke, which is VERY effective in reducing RF pickup in
> > the external wiring. This looks pretty well identical to the "RF3"
> > filter which is used by BT in the case of bad RF interference. I have a
> > BT-fitted RF3, and it's the bees neez for this purpose.

It also cripples Max ADSL.


> > If you don't have a faceplate filter, I'd go for an iPlate ....
> >
> > Perhaps all those who like to tell us that the iPlate "is just a choke
> > in the bell wire" or "You'd be just as well cutting the bell wire" will
> > now reconsider their "advice" ?
>
> Not really, my advice, based on rescuing several badly performing ADSL
> installations, was to use a faceplate filter rather than an IPlate. The
> IPlate is a second-best solution, better than nothing in some cases
> where poor plug-in filters have been used, but far from ideal.
>
> Don't forget that installations with RF common mode filters fitted in
> the past to reject local broadcast stations from telephone apparatus,
> cannot support ADSL until these filters have been removed.

I unknowingly had an RF3 and it was causing all manner of problems with my
broadband when it went to 'Max'. Indeed I'd got occasional dropouts when it
was 2Mbps but not 1 Mbps. It would just about support 2Mbps on Max but would
lose sync from time to time. The Openreach engineer replaced it with a more
appropriate one and the sync rate went straight to 8128 kbps !

Graham

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...

>
> I unknowingly had an RF3 and it was causing all manner of problems with my
> broadband when it went to 'Max'. Indeed I'd got occasional dropouts when it
> was 2Mbps but not 1 Mbps. It would just about support 2Mbps on Max but would
> lose sync from time to time. The Openreach engineer replaced it with a more
> appropriate one and the sync rate went straight to 8128 kbps !

I also wonder if the IPlate has been adequately tested on ADSL+ ???
Will we get more business going round removing IPlates from
installations that have been upgraded to ADSL+ because their simple in-
line filters attenuate the higher frequencies (up to 2.2MHz) too much?
A quick Butterworth calculation seems to indicate the values of L used
will attenuate the higher frequencies, if I've got the decimal places
correct (feel free to correct this - brain seems slow this morning...)
:-)
--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice